Evolutionists often say that creationist theories are not "real science" because, they claim, such theories make no predictions which can be tested. But in this theory we have a counterexample to their claim. Here are some specific predictions of the theory which could be tested by future data from space missions:

And that is a show of double standards by the evolutionist side, since their "theory" cannot make any predictions as well, (rather the predictions are made ad hoc, which isn't a prediction).

The MODEL (technically evolution is a model since it cannot make predicitons since it is based on random change, randomness cannot be predicted), is altered after contradictions are found between evolution and reality.

Predictions can be made based on statistical analysis of random events. When you roll the dice, you can't predict the outcome of a given roll but you can calculate the probablility of an event happening in a large number of rolls.

Contradictions between the theory of evolution and reality quite rightly require changes in the theory. That's how science works. If a theory never changes, it's probably pseudoscience.

Someone who has rigorously studied a topic for 10+ years on the internet would probably know much more than most university graduates.

As I think I mentioned earlier, evolution predicts that animal products like insulin can be used in humans because humans and animals are closely related so they have very similar chemistry. Creationism can make the same prediction but it lacks a "because". It doesn't propose a reason for the similar chemistry.

It isn't enough to just make a prediction. Your prediction has to be able to distinguish your hypothesis from the others. How do Humphreys' predictions distinguish his hypothesis?

The hallmark of a psuedoscience is "Ooops, maybe we should change the story."

Relativity and Quantum Mechanics modified Newton's theories. Are you calling them pseudoscience?

1. Actually this IS the case in reference to evolution, (not Biology as a whole since nothing would really be lost if we take the assumption of evolution out of Biology). Whilst studying evolution at university most of the time I would hang around after class and would ask the lecturer questions, only one actually admitted to not knowing the answer, and another acknowledged the problem but didn't really care about it. The others instead gave run-around / deflective answers that didn't address the problem at hand.

Here are a selection from what I can remember

- Darwins finches are used as evidence of change. During a drought it was observed that the % of beak sizes within the population changed dramatically due to the changed environmental conditions. Whist this is change, another study was undertaken after the drought which had shown that after the environmental conditions returned to "normal" then the beak size % also reverted back to its previous %. This infers that whilst change does occur the oscillations in environmental conditions would produce oscillations in variance in traits, thus leading to nothing ever "evolving": since it merely changes and reverts, changes and reverts...

- Darwins finches are also known to interbreed doesn't this infer that they are the same species, (just with different beak sizes, much like the differences in dogs).

- Colour changes in moths is not a trait that is indicative of a species becoming a new organism. It is a benign trait, as if you can change it to all colours under the sun, the organism will still have the same basic body plan aka phenotype, therefore there is no generation of new structures for the organism to become a new phenotype.

- Comparing DNA sequences allows gaps (alignment) on the basis that evolution is assumed to have occurred, therefore using the DNA similarity % based on these comparisons as "evidence" of evolution is circular reasoning because it is based on the assumption that evolution occurred in the first place.

Feel free to try and answer these, however I will state that if established lecturers cannot answer these then I won't be holding my breath. However what this means is that when it comes to the problems of evolution claims like mine fall on deaf ears. Not really sure how much more evidence you want.

as I stated before ALL people are biased, it is a fact of life which you cannot deny. So really all I have said previously has been overkill.

2. Scrutinized by who... other evolutionists! Do you see the problem here... An analogy would be for me to declare that Australia is the best country in the world and then to have that claim "peer reviewed" only by Australians. Honestly peer review is a joke concerning topics where people's worldviews are concerned.

Perhaps consider if I was reviewing the papers as an agnostic scientist who believes in creation, (and considering the previous citation of evolutionary assumptions / errors), it would be a different story.

1. I can remember many students back in 10th grade maths, who thought there were flaws in basic algebra and asked but why is 'x' or any other letter assumed to be a number? How can a letter and a number be the same? Like those students did not understand the concepts of algebra and the assumptions that are necessary for the science to progress, you too do not understand(or choose to pretend not to) understand the concepts behind the theory of evolution. Not understanding something is a poor way of disproving it.

- Do you have a link to this observation? And even IF that were to be the case, natural selection occurs as a response mechanism to an organism's needs to adapt to a given environment. If that environment were to change, possibly so would the mutations and adaptations as every ecological niche demands different adaptations to survive in the given environment.- That, i'm afraid is a lie. This is the definition of species:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpeciesAnd Darwin's finches were classified as different species on that very basis:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finchesThere have been occasions, where divergent branches of the same genus have been able to interbreed(provided the divergence was not that pronounced) and produce offspring, but the new 'hybrid' was often found to be infertile.- I believe you are referring to peppered moths. Seeing as how the dark colored moths camouflaged themselves against the bark of trees and helped to increase the ratio of their offspring who survive from predatory birds, its safe to say they were 'selected' for this and the benefit of this phenotype fits the theory of evolution model perfectly.- No, it clearly demonstrates that organisms have similarities at the molecular(DNA) level, again exactly as evolution predicts. To simply state that common DNA implies common design without common ancestry is false and is the real circular reasoning you accuse me of, because what you fail to realize is that as a believer in God you HAVE to believe that he made ALL things, including non living things. So why is'nt there DNA in rocks, water, or on the surface of the moon? So no, common DNA between all living things cannot be used as evidence of a common designer(i'm a believer in God, btw but this argument of yours is false).

2. That's not helpful. Why don't you label physicists who 'believe' in gravity as 'other gravitationalists'? Again, you fail to give any reason why all professors of the science of biology would abandon all forms of rational thought and scrutiny with respect to just one theory.

Or perhaps if there are atheist scientists who don't believe in evolution you might have a stronger case lol.

Predictions can be made based on statistical analysis of random events. When you roll the dice, you can't predict the outcome of a given roll but you can calculate the probablility of an event happening in a large number of rolls.

Contradictions between the theory of evolution and reality quite rightly require changes in the theory. That's how science works. If a theory never changes, it's probably pseudoscience.

That's what I'm saying.

No that is not how science works, adding an ad hoc hypothesis is how pseudo-science works.

Ad hoc hypothesis An auxilliary hypothesis that lacks independent support which is adopted to save a theory from refutation. Such hypotheses are bad because any theory can be rescued from refutation in this way. Auxilliary hypotheses should be justified by independent evidence. http://www.fallacyfi...g/glossary.htmlIn science and philosophy, an ad hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. Ad hoc hypothesizing is compensating for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form.Scientists are often skeptical of theories that rely on frequent, unsupported adjustments to sustain them. This is because, if a theorist so chooses, there is no limit to the number of ad hoc hypotheses that they could add. Thus the theory becomes more and more complex, but is never falsified. This is often at a cost to the theory's predictive power, however.[1] Ad hoc hypotheses are often characteristic of pseudoscientific subjects.[2]

No that is not how science works, adding an ad hoc hypothesis is how pseudo-science works.

Your claim of ad hoc hypotheses is unsupported. Your failure to undertand the changes and/or your refusal to accept them doesn't make them ad hoc.

Once again, good theories change. Newton's laws of motion have been modified to accomodate very high velocities (Relativity) and very small particles (Quantum Mechanics). The changes in the theory were necessary because of new observations. That's how science works.

1. I can remember many students back in 10th grade maths, who thought there were flaws in basic algebra and asked but why is 'x' or any other letter assumed to be a number? How can a letter and a number be the same? Like those students did not understand the concepts of algebra and the assumptions that are necessary for the science to progress, you too do not understand(or choose to pretend not to) understand the concepts behind the theory of evolution. Not understanding something is a poor way of disproving it.

- Do you have a link to this observation? And even IF that were to be the case, natural selection occurs as a response mechanism to an organism's needs to adapt to a given environment. If that environment were to change, possibly so would the mutations and adaptations as every ecological niche demands different adaptations to survive in the given environment.- That, i'm afraid is a lie. This is the definition of species:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpeciesAnd Darwin's finches were classified as different species on that very basis:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finchesThere have been occasions, where divergent branches of the same genus have been able to interbreed(provided the divergence was not that pronounced) and produce offspring, but the new 'hybrid' was often found to be infertile.- I believe you are referring to peppered moths. Seeing as how the dark colored moths camouflaged themselves against the bark of trees and helped to increase the ratio of their offspring who survive from predatory birds, its safe to say they were 'selected' for this and the benefit of this phenotype fits the theory of evolution model perfectly.- No, it clearly demonstrates that organisms have similarities at the molecular(DNA) level, again exactly as evolution predicts. To simply state that common DNA implies common design without common ancestry is false and is the real circular reasoning you accuse me of, because what you fail to realize is that as a believer in God you HAVE to believe that he made ALL things, including non living things. So why is'nt there DNA in rocks, water, or on the surface of the moon? So no, common DNA between all living things cannot be used as evidence of a common designer(i'm a believer in God, btw but this argument of yours is false).

2. That's not helpful. Why don't you label physicists who 'believe' in gravity as 'other gravitationalists'? Again, you fail to give any reason why all professors of the science of biology would abandon all forms of rational thought and scrutiny with respect to just one theory.

Or perhaps if there are atheist scientists who don't believe in evolution you might have a stronger case lol.

Seems like I struck a nerve, not only have you claimed I don't understand what I am talking about you also state that I am lying... (Considering that a quick google search with the words "Darwins finches" and "interbreeding" will allay any resolution of my untruthfulness. Considering this I'm going to assume that your post here was a knee-jerk reaction.

1. Claiming arbitrarily that someone doesn't understand is a VERY weak argument and basically shows when you are "scrapping the bottom of the barrel". Considering that if I didn't understand then my lecturers would have been able to correct my mistake and yet were unable to do so, one admitting she didn't know and another admitting the problem was real but didn't really care undermines your claim here. I know fully well what I am talking about, and it is because I do understand is because I do not believe in evolution.

- clearly you "don't understand" what I am getting at. Yes it is claimed that environmental pressures push selection, now tell me what environmental pressure will be constant enough for 10000 or so years for the trait to fix? If the environmental pressures fluctuate, so to do the traits meaning there is not enough time for fixation, therefore implying no evolution. This is an observed trait of the environment, the seasons is proof of that. Therefore what proof do you have that traits can fixate despite these fluctiations?

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1910This mentions the change back to normal status

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14761069This is a PEER REVIEWED article citing that Darwins finches can interbreed

- As I mentioned earlier this is no lie, just do a simple google search. May I suggest you do a bit of research outside of wikipedia since we don't really view wikipedia as very creditable here, (it can be changed by anyone). You do see here that whilst the identification of species is to do with breeding (which is the mechanism of passing on genetic information), evolutionists will now attempt to change this concept, (claim it is wrong or incomplete etc), AFTER this contradiction is found. This is a prime example of an ad hoc hypothesis and clearly demonstrates how evolution is pseudo-science and is no more intellectual as a coffee cup.

- Again you do not understand what I am getting at... I know that it is claimed that they are selected for or against etc. As I said you can select for any and all colours yet that trait will do nothing for that organism to become something else. It is an arbitrary change which has no impact on its actual phenotype.... please read (and perhaps re-read) what I write before responding, your claim here had nothing to do with what I had written.

- Did I mention common DNA infers common design? Did you read what I wrote at all?

I wrote that the underlying assumption used for the DNA analysis, ie- the assumption that evolution occured hence we can allow for the addition of gaps to align the sequences, means that use of that "evidence" as evidence for evolution is circular reasoning, since you had to assume evolution was true initially to come to the evidence.

2. Your claims here have nothing to do with what was discussed. I was discussing in that point how peer review in and of itself is not creditable when it comes to claims associated with worldviews. However because I am feeling nice, and I actually read your posts (well at least this one) I will answer.

The underlying reason why many scientists believe in evolution is simply because of the indoctrination that occurs at school / university. Honestly I am a third year student at Uni and the amount of pressure they put on people to assume that evolution is "true" is staggering. We had one lecturer state about 20 times over that "evolution is true"... Yet ironically the semester earlier we were told that in Science you can never claim something as true since there is always the potential for falsification at a later date... (therefore proving that even scientists are biased since this guy believed in evolution so strongly that he was willing to do so against the basic tenets of science itself).

Your claim of ad hoc hypotheses is unsupported. Your failure to undertand the changes and/or your refusal to accept them doesn't make them ad hoc.

Once again, good theories change. Newton's laws of motion have been modified to accomodate very high velocities (Relativity) and very small particles (Quantum Mechanics). The changes in the theory were necessary because of new observations. That's how science works.

Here is my support for ad hoc hypothesises

Ringo post#62

"Contradictions between the theory of evolution and reality quite rightly require changes in the theory. That's how science works. If a theory never changes, it's probably pseudoscience."

Just adding in an "oops well shuffle this here" IS an ad hoc hypothesis... The scientific method would demand that the original hypothesis be scrapped and a new one made.

Furthermore if something doesn't change because it doesn't need to then wouldn't that be more creditable than the thing that needs constant checking, revising etc? The truth doesn't change too.... hmm

The scientific method would demand that the original hypothesis be scrapped and a new one made.

An individual hypothesis is scrapped, not an entire theory. "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is a hypothesis that was scrapped and the Theory of Evolution is stronger for it, not weaker. (By the way, it was once called the "biogenetic law" so yes, laws can be scrapped too.)

Furthermore if something doesn't change because it doesn't need to then wouldn't that be more creditable than the thing that needs constant checking, revising etc?

Most useful activities require constant checking and revising, driving a car, for example. Adapting to change is a good thing.

An individual hypothesis is scrapped, not an entire theory. "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is a hypothesis that was scrapped and the Theory of Evolution is stronger for it, not weaker. (By the way, it was once called the "biogenetic law" so yes, laws can be scrapped too.)

Most useful activities require constant checking and revising, driving a car, for example. Adapting to change is a good thing.

You are comparing oranges to apples, (not logical)... The truth is the truth, it will not become something else suddenly. Historical truth ie- I was alive yesterday NEVER changes.

As I think I mentioned earlier, evolution predicts that animal products like insulin can be used in humans because humans and animals are closely related so they have very similar chemistry. Creationism can make the same prediction but it lacks a "because". It doesn't propose a reason for the similar chemistry.

Because the creatures are similarly designed.

Relativity and Quantum Mechanics modified Newton's theories. Are you calling them pseudoscience?

As I think I mentioned earlier, evolution predicts that animal products like insulin can be used in humans because humans and animals are closely related so they have very similar chemistry. Creationism can make the same prediction but it lacks a "because". It doesn't propose a reason for the similar chemistry.

They also predicted that humans could use Chimp blood.... Those who were transplanted died a day or two later.

The trouble is that there's no reason for them to be similarly designed. Similar design suggests a lazy designer, not an omnipotent one. The Bible and creationism have been around for a long time. If they had any reason to think the species were similarly designed, creationists should have predicted it first.

The point is that similarity is a necessary prediction of evolution. If Humans and pigs have a common ancestor, it's expected that they will have similarities. Insulin from a close relative, like a pig, is more likely to work in you in the same way that a kidney from a close relative, like a cousin, is more likely to work in you.

From a creationist viewpoint, it isn't a necessary prediction. It can be added on arbitrarily but creationism would work just as well without it.

The point is that similarity is a necessary prediction of evolution. If Humans and pigs have a common ancestor, it's expected that they will have similarities. Insulin from a close relative, like a pig, is more likely to work in you in the same way that a kidney from a close relative, like a cousin, is more likely to work in you. From a creationist viewpoint, it isn't a necessary prediction. It can be added on arbitrarily but creationism would work just as well without it.

So you've totally backed off the assertion that there is no reason for similarity from creation?

So you've totally backed off the assertion that there is no reason for similarity from creation?

When you're talking about an omnipotent God, there's always a possible reason. The point here is that creationists can tack on any "reason" they like. Evolutionists, on the other hand, are stuck with the inevitable results that actually follow from their observations.

When you're talking about an omnipotent God, there's always a possible reason. The point here is that creationists can tack on any "reason" they like. Evolutionists, on the other hand, are stuck with the inevitable results that actually follow from their observations.

So you've totally backed off the assertion that there is no reason for similarity from creation?